PHL 115 CMI Warren's Criticism of an Anti-Abortion Argument McKitrick

Argument A:

(P1) It is wrong to kill innocent human beings.

(P2) Fetuses are innocent human beings.

Warren's Objection (Today's Moral Issues, p. 335)

The word 'human' can mean different things:

Genetically human - has human DNA, is member of the species Homo sapiens, is conceived of human parents

Morally human - a person capable of being a moral agent, a full-fledged member of the moral community, that can reason and communicate.

What does 'human' mean in Argument A?

Interpretation 1:

'human' = morally human in (P1) and (P2).

Substituting occurrences of the word 'human' for the synonymous expression, Argument A can be restated as Argument A1:

(P1m) It is wrong to kill innocent morally human beings.

(P2m) Fetuses are innocent morally human beings.

Argument A1 is valid. The conclusion follows from the premises. However, (P2m) is open to doubt. A fetus cannot reason or communicate, is not capable of being a moral agent, and is not a member of the moral community. So, it seems that a fetus is not an innocent morally human being, and (P2m) is false. Since Argument A1 has a false premise, it is unsound.

So, let's look for another interpretation of Argument A.

Interpretation 2:

'human' = genetically human in (P1) and (P2).

Substituting synonymous expressions, Argument A can now be restated as Argument A2:

(P1g) It is wrong to kill innocent genetically human beings.

(P2g) Fetuses are innocent genetically human beings.

Argument A2 is also valid. However, (P1g) is open to doubt. The class of genetically humans includes any member of the species, including human fetuses. No one would think that it is wrong to kill all innocent genetically human beings unless they already thought that it is wrong to kill human fetuses. Argument A2 implicitly uses its conclusion as a premise, assumes what it is trying to prove, argues in a circle, or Begs the Question.

So, let's look for yet a third interpretation of Argument A.

Interpretation 3:

'human' = morally human in (P1)

'human' = genetically human in (P2).

Substituting synonymous expressions, Argument A can now be restated as Argument A3:

(P1m) It is wrong to kill innocent morally human beings.

(P2g) Fetuses are innocent genetically human beings.

This interpretation makes (P1) and (P2) believable. It is wrong to kill innocent members of our moral community, and a human fetus does have human DNA, etc. However, Argument A3 is invalid. The conclusion does not follow from the from the premises. If A3 is the correct interpretation of Argument A, then Argument A commits the Fallacy of Equivocation. A key term is used in more than one sense in the course of the argument.

Conclusion:

No matter how we interpret Argument A, it has a serious problem.

A1 has a false premise. A2 begs the question. A3 is invalid.

Therefore, we may reject Argument A.

Comment:

Warren's conclusion is a bit premature. Even if there are only two ways to define 'human,' there is a 4^th interpretation of Argument A that she hasn't considered.

Exercise: Given the two definitions of 'human' that Warren offers, what is Interpretation 4 of Argument A? Explain 3 reasons why Warren would reject it.

• Explain key terms and new concepts.
• Do not offer a new definition of 'human.' Stick with Warren's two definitions.
• Do not give a whole new argument. Give an interpretation of Argument A, along the same lines as Interpretations 1, 2, and 3 -- by substituting each occurrence of the word 'human' for a synonymous expression.
• This is a simple exercise in logic, not a matter of opinion, and there is a right answer.
• Everything you need to know to answer this question is on this handout.
• 1 page typed, double spaced, 12 pt. font.